 Argumentation is one of those terms that tends to have a negative association. Often in common use, folks tend to confuse argument with interpersonal conflict. When rhetorical scholars speak of argumentation, they are most likely referring to a systematic way we may reach conclusions through logical reasoning. When the process is centered around a central topic for the purpose of juxtaposing ideas against each other in order to better seek out what is or what ought to be, we refer to it as debate. Historians point to multiple instances where debate has been practiced over time. Two of the most famous examples are the ancient Greeks who used debate both in teaching and political arenas, and Chastratha in ancient India, where debate was a key tool in the examination of various religious, philosophical, moral, and doctrinal issues. Modern debate, as we understand it and practice it today, grew out of the 18th century use of enlightenment. During this time, debating societies were formed to engage in discussion on issues that ranged from governmental policy to the nature of life and love. While these societies eventually declined, the tradition carried on as a component of democracy and the modern liberal arts education. In this lecture we will explore one of the most recent incarnations of competitive debate, IPDA. We will briefly explore what makes the format unique, cover some of the basic tenets of debating, before finally giving a brief overview of the IPDA format of debating. Let's get to it! In the United States, competitive debate has been popular at both the high school and collegiate level for well over a hundred years. During that time, competitive debate has seen a variety of formats come and go. In the last 30 years, there has been a reoccurring trend in debate where existing formats become extremely fast and technical. In response, new formats are created with an emphasis on being more approachable and audience-centric. In the 80s, this was attempted with CEDA-style debate, and in the 90s, this was attempted with parliamentary-style. Both formats have become fast and technical. IPDA-style debate is one of the most recent attempts to create a format of debate that is accessible to both new debaters and lay audiences. The governing bylaws of the International Public Debate Association state that the key purpose of IPDA is to provide contestants with a forum in which they can enhance their education through the laboratory of productive, real-world competitive debate experiences. Public debate competitions are intended to provide rhetorically sound models of communicative debate which competitors can experience, study, emulate and internalize. Tournament directors are encouraged to offer a wide variety of topics and a wide range of judges to encourage participants to become familiar with and think strategically about the relationship among issues, arguments and audiences. In this way, the IPDA format strives to provide contestants with a chance to develop advanced skills in audience sensitivity and analysis and the opportunity to develop a range of speaking and argumentative styles which will be successful in business, legal and professional settings. Now that we have an understanding of what IPDA is, let's look into the basics of how it works. IPDA-style debate is one of several formats of limited preparation debate. This means that unlike CEDA and NFA policy formats where debaters debate the same topic for an entire season, IPDA debaters are given new topics prior to the start of each debate round. Before a round of debate begins, each team is assigned a side in the debate, affirmative or negative. In a debate round, the side that you are assigned determines your goals in that round. When you are assigned to be the affirmative team, you'll be responsible for arguing in favor, a.k.a. affirming the topic. When you are assigned to be the negative, you are responsible for arguing against, a.k.a. negating the topic. An important thing to realize is that this means that you will often find yourself arguing and juxtaposition to your own personal beliefs. This is an important aspect of what we call switch side debate. Know that this can sometimes be uncomfortable at first, but it's useful as it exposes you to alternative ways of thinking about controversial issues. It also tends to be helpful as it prepares you to better understand the best arguments for those who oppose your own personal stances. This makes it easier to defend your stance in real life. At the end of the day, debate is just a game. The worst thing that can happen is that you leave with a more nuanced understanding of complicated issues. In IPDA, a round starts when a list of topics, referred to as resolutions, are presented to the debaters. Each pair of opponents gets some say in the topic they wish to debate. Starting with the negative team, each contestant will alternatively strike one of the five resolutions presented until only one remains. That will be the debate resolution for the round. Contestants must complete the topic selection process independently and without outside assistance. For the moment that the first topic was struck, a period known as prep time begins. During prep, debaters can consult with coaches, teammates, written materials, or search the internet for information that helps them compose their arguments. Why there is some variation in prep time is typically 20 to 30 minutes long. When prep time ends, both teams of debaters must be present and ready to begin the debate, lest they risk forfeiting the round. The debate itself is organized into two different types of speeches. Constructive speeches, where debaters introduce new arguments and build their case, and rebuttal speeches, where debaters seek to summarize the arguments of the round and convince the judges and audience members that they won the debate. A key difference between the two speech types is that debaters are not permitted to make new arguments in rebuttal speeches. If they do, their judge will likely protect the flow by not considering those arguments and evaluating the round. The time limits for an IPDA debate are designed to give even time to both teams. In intercollegiate competition, the time limits are standardized in the bylaws of the International Public Debate Association. These bylaws are the governing document that sets the rules for the event. Should you ever watch or participate in a full-length IPDA debate round, you can expect the following time structure. First affirmative constructive, five minutes, followed by two minutes of cross-examination. Then first negative constructive, six minutes, followed by two additional minutes of cross-examination. Then the first affirmative rebuttal, three minutes, followed by the negative rebuttal and summary, which is five minutes, and then the second affirmative rebuttal and summary, which is three minutes. These times establish a round that takes approximately 25 minutes to complete. Some debate tournaments and introductory classes modify the aforementioned time limits to fit their constraints. It's a good idea to check with your coach or professor to see if alternate times are in use. Now that we've covered how the debate is laid out, let's talk a little bit about how the debate works. In a debate, the most important component is the resolution. The resolution is the agreed upon topic given to both teams prior to the start of the debate, and it establishes expectations of what each team will argue during the round. In IPDA style debate, there are three main types of resolutions and one subtype, which are debated in rounds. Fact, value, policy, and metaphors. Let's briefly take a look at them. Fact resolutions are centered around empirical phenomenon. For example, consider this resolution a fact. Global warming threatens agricultural production. In this debate, the affirmative would be responsible of proving through their argumentation that global warming does indeed pose a threat to agricultural production. The negative team, however, would need to show that either the affirmative team did not present sufficient logical argumentation and evidence to support the resolution or that the opposite fact is true, i.e. that global warming may lead to increased agricultural production. Next, value resolutions. Value resolutions juxtapose conflicting moral dilemmas. For example, consider this resolution a value. The death penalty is a justified method of punishment. In this debate, the affirmative would need to convince us that the death penalty is justified. The negative team, in turn, would seek to convince us the death penalty is not. In debates over values, it's common for the affirmative team to propose a value criterion for the round. Now, the value criterion acts as a lens for the judge to view the round through. For example, if the accepted criterion in the round is the protection of life, arguments about protecting privacy rights would not factor into the judge's evaluation of who won the round. In this way, the criterion acts as a means to filter through the arguments made in all of the speeches of the round. The third type of IPDA topics are resolutions of policy. In a policy debate, the resolution resolves the fiated implementation of a hypothetical policy action. Consider the resolution. The United States federal government should significantly increase the federal minimum wage. In this debate, the affirmative team would choose an actor that falls under the umbrella of the United States federal government and propose that they enact a policy that significantly increases the federal minimum wage. In policy debate, this is referred to as presenting a plan text. For this example, the plan might be something like the United States Congress will pass a law that increases the federal minimum wage to $20 an hour. The affirmative would then need to convince us that passing their plan would result in a net beneficial increase to the status quo. The negative team then has several options of how they can proceed. Minimally, all they need to do to win is prove that the status quo would not improve as a result of the plan. They could, however, also argue that the status quo would worsen as a result of the affirmative plan. There's also a plethora of procedural arguments and counter-advocacy strategies that a more advanced negative team may choose to employ. In addition to the three aforementioned resolution types, there is a fourth oddball resolution type, the metaphorical resolution. This type of resolution leaves the bulk of what the debate is about up to the affirmative team. There are limits to how broadly the affirmative can interpret these resolutions, however. You must keep with the spirit of the metaphor. For example, if you chose the resolution, this house believes that it's better to play it safe. In this debate, the affirmative would need to present a case, either policy, fact, or value, where cautious choice is shown to be preferable to a risky one. If the affirmative fails to uphold the general spirit of the metaphor, then the negative team can win by arguing that the affirmative has abusively set up the round. Metaphorical resolutions are always a challenge for negative teams, so it's important that affirmative teams set up equitable ground for both sides. Today, we covered the basics of IPDA debate. We discussed the philosophy of the event, how the debate works, and some specific rules of the format. We know that human beings have been using debate to better understand our world for at least 2,500 years. Learning this skill set gives you the chance to join that history and greatly expand your own understandings. Thanks for watching. This video series is written and produced by me, Ryan Guy, with the help of a wide variety of scholarly research and open educational resources. For more information on the references and material used, see the description page on YouTube. This video is published under a Creative Commons license. Please feel free to share, use, and remix its content.